DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Chinese Application No. 202210103145.9, filed January 27, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al, Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 115567991 B (hereinafter Xu, using related U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240129830 A1 fir citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu discloses a path preference determining method, comprising: obtaining, by a first terminal, first information (e.g., ¶ [0127] 4. A path selection policy may include a path preference. The path preference represents a path preferred by an application, and may specifically include: PC5 preferred, Uu preferred, or no preference. For example, a path preference of a V2X application represents that the V2X application prefers PC5. The terminal device may obtain the path selection policy from an application server or a PCF; e.g., ¶ [0157] [0158] first terminal device sends the first message to the second terminal device based on first reference information… first reference information may include one or more of the following information: a path selection policy); and determining, by the first terminal, a path preference of a target application according to the first information (e.g.,¶ [0127] path preference represents a path preferred by an application).
Regarding Claim 2, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 1.
Xu discloses wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating the path preference of the target application (e.g., ¶ [0157] [0158] first terminal device sends the first message to the second terminal device based on first reference information… first reference information may include one or more of the following information: a path selection policy); or a path preference mapping rule list, wherein the path preference mapping rule list comprises path preference mapping rules and priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules; wherein each of the path preference mapping rules is used for indicating one path preference.
Regarding Claim 10, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 2.
Xu discloses wherein the obtaining, by a first terminal, first information comprises: obtaining, by a proximity service (ProSe) layer of the first terminal, the first indication information sent by an application layer or an upper layer of the first terminal (e.g., ¶ [0148] In a second possible manner, the information #1 is a service type of the service #A. The service type may be used to identify a type of service, for example, a ProSe service type, a provider service identifier (PSID) service type, or an intelligent transport systems application identifier (ITS-AID) service type. Specifically, the ProSe service type may be used to identify a service whose service type is ProSe).
Regarding Claim 11, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 1.
Xu discloses wherein the path preference comprises at least one of the following: preference for PC5, preference for Uu, or no preference (e.g., ¶ [0127] 4. A path selection policy may include a path preference. The path preference represents a path preferred by an application, and may specifically include: PC5 preferred, Uu preferred, or no preference. For example, a path preference of a V2X application represents that the V2X application prefers PC5. The terminal device may obtain the path selection policy from an application server or a PCF).
Regarding Claim 12, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 11.
Xu discloses wherein after the determining a path preference of a target application, the method further comprises: in a case that the path preference of the target application is preference for PC5, performing, by the first terminal, communication with the second terminal by using a ProSe direct communication mechanism on PC5; in a case that the path preference of the target application is preference for Uu, performing, by the first terminal, communication with the second terminal by using a Uu mechanism; and in a case that the path preference of the target application is no preference, performing, by the first terminal, communication with the second terminal based on implementation of the first terminal (e.g., ¶ [0149] Specifically, it is assumed that services between the first terminal device and the second terminal device include at least two service types, for example, the ProSe service type and the PSID service type, and the first terminal device requests to switch a service of the ProSe service type from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode. In this case, the first terminal device may include the ProSe service type in the first message and send the first message to the second terminal device, to request to switch the service of the ProSe service type from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode. In this case, the service #A refers to all services whose service types are ProSe service types between the first terminal device and the second terminal device; e.g., ¶ [0046] Based on the technical solution, the second terminal device may determine, based on the signal quality of the Uu interface of the second terminal device meeting the QoS requirement of the first service, to accept switching of the first service from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode. In this way, after the first service is switched from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode, the signal quality of the Uu interface of the second terminal device can meet the QoS requirement of the first service. In addition, the second terminal device may alternatively determine, based on the path selection policy, to accept switching of the first service from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode, so that the first service that is switched from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode is the service for which the Uu interface communication mode is preferably used. In addition, the second terminal device may alternatively determine, based on the path selection policy, to accept switching of the first service from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode, so that the service that is switched from the PC5 interface communication mode to the Uu interface communication mode is the service for which switching of the communication mode is allowed).
Regarding Claim 19, Xu discloses a terminal, comprising a processor and a memory (e.g., FIG. 8, ¶ [0515] device 800 (as UE) with processor 810 and memory 820), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions executable on the processor (e.g., ¶ [0515] processor 810 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions stored in the memory 820, to implement related operations of the first terminal device in the method embodiments), and the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the terminal to perform operations that are functionally similar to the method of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of Claim 1 shall be applied to claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lee et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150117209 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 3, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 2.
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein each of the path preference mapping rules comprises a mapping relationship between one path preference and one application, or a mapping relationship between one path preference and one application identifier, or a mapping relationship between one path preference and all applications.
Lee discloses wherein each of the path preference mapping rules comprises a mapping relationship between one path preference and one application, or a mapping relationship between one path preference and one application identifier, or a mapping relationship between one path preference and all applications (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network. The path decision policy may include at least one of: a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on an application or a service generating the received WLAN data traffic from the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on a network load status of the first path; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on subscriber information of the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path differently by a subscribing time; and a policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule based on a subscribing time, a traffic generation region, a subscriber, a traffic type, and a load; e.g., ¶ [0013] path decision policy rules stored in a mapping table, determining a data path mapped to information of the mapping table, which is matched with the extracted information, and selecting one of the first data path and the second data path based on the determined data path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 4, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 2.
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein the obtaining, by a first terminal, first information comprises: receiving, by the first terminal, the path preference mapping rule list sent by a network-side device.
Lee discloses wherein the obtaining, by a first terminal, first information comprises: receiving, by the first terminal, the path preference mapping rule list sent by a network-side device (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 6, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 2.
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein the path preference mapping rule list comprises at least one path preference mapping rule sorted according to the priority information.
Lee discloses wherein the path preference mapping rule list comprises at least one path preference mapping rule sorted according to the priority information (e.g., ¶ [0011] policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule based on a subscribing time, a traffic generation region, a subscriber, a traffic type, and a load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 13, Xu discloses a path preference determining method, comprising: generating, by a network-side device, a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference provided by an application server (e.g., ¶ [0127] 4. A path selection policy may include a path preference. The path preference represents a path preferred by an application, and may specifically include: PC5 preferred, Uu preferred, or no preference. For example, a path preference of a V2X application represents that the V2X application prefers PC5. The terminal device may obtain the path selection policy from an application server or a PCF; e.g., ¶ [0157] [0158] first terminal device sends the first message to the second terminal device based on first reference information… first reference information may include one or more of the following information: a path selection policy); and sending, by the network-side device, the path preference mapping rule list to a terminal (e.g., ¶ [0127] 4. A path selection policy may include a path preference. The path preference represents a path preferred by an application, and may specifically include: PC5 preferred, Uu preferred, or no preference. For example, a path preference of a V2X application represents that the V2X application prefers PC5. The terminal device may obtain the path selection policy from an application server or a PCF; e.g., ¶ [0157] [0158] first terminal device sends the first message to the second terminal device based on first reference information… first reference information may include one or more of the following information: a path selection policy); wherein the path preference mapping rule list comprises path preference mapping rules (e.g., ¶ [0157] [0158] first terminal device sends the first message to the second terminal device based on first reference information… first reference information may include one or more of the following information: a path selection policy)
Xu does not expressly disclose priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, and each of the path preference mapping rules is used for indicating one path preference.
Lee discloses priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, and each of the path preference mapping rules is used for indicating one path preference (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network. The path decision policy may include at least one of: a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on an application or a service generating the received WLAN data traffic from the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on a network load status of the first path; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on subscriber information of the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path differently by a subscribing time; and a policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule based on a subscribing time, a traffic generation region, a subscriber, a traffic type, and a load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 14, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 13.
The functional limitations of Claim 14 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 14.
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein the generating, by a network-side device, a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference provided by an application server comprises: obtaining, by the network-side device, at least one path preference mapping rule based on the path preference provided by the application server; configuring, by the network-side device, priority information corresponding to each of the path preference mapping rule; and sorting, by the network-side device, the at least one path preference mapping rule according to the priority information corresponding to each of the path preference mapping rules to obtain the path preference mapping rule list.
Lee discloses wherein the generating, by a network-side device, a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference provided by an application server comprises: obtaining, by the network-side device, at least one path preference mapping rule based on the path preference provided by the application server (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network); configuring, by the network-side device, priority information corresponding to each of the path preference mapping rule (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network. The path decision policy may include at least one of… a policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule); and sorting, by the network-side device, the at least one path preference mapping rule according to the priority information corresponding to each of the path preference mapping rules to obtain the path preference mapping rule list (e.g., ¶ [0011] policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule based on a subscribing time, a traffic generation region, a subscriber, a traffic type, and a load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 18, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 13.
The functional limitations of Claim 18 are similar to claim 13. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 13 shall be applied to claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, Xu in view of Lee discloses a network-side device, comprising a processor and a memory (e.g., FIG. 7, ¶ [0508] apparatus 700 (as network element) with processing unit 720 and memory (e.g., ¶ [0505])), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions executable on the processor (e.g., ¶ [0506] implemented by hardware executing corresponding software), and when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the path preference determining method according to claim 13 are implemented.
Claims 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lee in further view of Shan, International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2022066383 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Xu in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 4.
Xu in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the determining, by the first terminal, a path preference of a target application according to the first information comprises: obtaining, by the first terminal, a path preference matching an identifier of the target application according to the path preference mapping rule list and the priority information.
Shan discloses wherein the determining, by the first terminal, a path preference of a target application according to the first information comprises: obtaining, by the first terminal, a path preference matching an identifier of the target application according to the path preference mapping rule list and the priority information (e.g., ¶ [0054] As above, for when both a ProSe direct communication path between UEs and a direct network communication path for the UEs are able to be used, enable path selection between the ProSe and network communication paths. In some embodiments, a path selection preference per Traffic Descriptor in the path selection policy and the path selection policy can be dynamically updated based on RAN Quality of Sendee (QoS) notification and Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) influence. In other embodiments, a mapping between Application ID and path (i.e., PC5 reference point associated with sidelink communications, Uu reference point) is defined and/or UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) enhanced with adding the PC5 Path as a new Access Type preference in the Route Selection Descriptor of a URSP rale. In the former embodiment, the UE first evaluates a list of Traffic Descriptors in the Path Selection Policy and then evaluates the PC5 and/or Uu communication related policy, which may introduce delay for establishing a Uu or PC5 communication path if the list of Traffic Descriptors is large. In the latter embodiment, in addition, not all application traffic can be identified by Application ID making path selection for that traffic unclear. In addition, as URSP is used for a packet data unit (PDU) Session association over Uu, the path selection procedure has been completed before the URSP is evaluated; making URSP inappropriate for path selection between PC5 and Uu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference and priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Xu in view of Lee, with the disclosure of path preference matching an identifier of the target application according to the path preference, as disclosed by Shan. The motivation to combine would have been to support path selection between a ProSe direct communication path and a direct network communication path (Shan: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 8, Xu discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 2.
Xu does not expressly disclose wherein at least one application corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules, or at least one application identifier corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules.
Lee discloses Lee discloses priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, and each of the path preference mapping rules is used for indicating one path preference (e.g., ¶ [0011] The method may further include obtaining a path decision policy from at least one of entities of an associated mobile network. The path decision policy may include at least one of: a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on an application or a service generating the received WLAN data traffic from the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on a network load status of the first path; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path based on subscriber information of the user equipment; a policy rule to select one of the first data path and the second data path differently by a subscribing time; and a policy rule to apply at least one of a priority and a weight each path decision policy rule based on a subscribing time, a traffic generation region, a subscriber, a traffic type, and a load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of a path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference, as disclosed by Xu, with the disclosure of priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute data traffic in a trusted access network (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein at least one application corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules, or at least one application identifier corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules.
Shan discloses wherein at least one application corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules, or at least one application identifier corresponds to one or more path preference mapping rules (e.g., ¶ [0054] a mapping between Application ID and path (i.e., PC5 reference point associated with sidelink communications, Uu reference point) is defined and/or UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) enhanced with adding the PC5 Path as a new Access Type preference in the Route Selection Descriptor of a URSP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of path preference mapping rule list based on a path preference and priority information corresponding to the path preference mapping rules, as disclosed by Xu in view of Lee, with the disclosure of path preference matching an identifier of the target application according to the path preference, as disclosed by Shan. The motivation to combine would have been to support path selection between a ProSe direct communication path and a direct network communication path (Shan: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 9, Xu in view of Lee in further view of Shan discloses all the limitations of the path preference determining method according to claim 8.
Shan discloses wherein in a case that at least one application corresponds to a plurality of path preference mapping rules, or in a case that at least one application identifier corresponds to a plurality of path preference mapping rules, priorities of path preferences corresponding to the at least one application or application identifier in different path preference mapping rules are different. (e.g., ¶ [0054] a mapping between Application ID and path (i.e., PC5 reference point associated with sidelink communications, Uu reference point) is defined and/or UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) enhanced with adding the PC5 Path as a new Access Type preference in the Route Selection Descriptor of a URSP).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from claim 2, and Claim 16, dependent from claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein each of the path preference mapping rules has a first indication field, and the first indication field is used for indicating the priority information.
Claim 17, dependent from claim 16, is also objected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights